(3) Zoning Board of Appeals

Town of Red Hook Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes (Approved) November 09, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 pm by Chairman Nick Annas ROLL CALL Members Present: Chairman Nick Annas, Kris Munn, Tim Ross, Chris Klose, Doug Lee, Chris Carney, and Jim Hegstetter Members Absent: None Also Present: Chris Chale, legal counsel for the Town of Red Hook, and Jim Ross, Town Board Liason to the ZBA, and Bob Fennell, Town of Red Hook Zoning Enforcement Officer, and Assistant Building Inspector. PRELIMINARY BUSINESS Minutes from October 12th, 2016 At 7:03pm Chairman Annas asks for a motion to approve the October 12, 2016 meeting minutes. Chris Klose so moves, and Kris Munn seconds. Chairman Annas asks the Board for comments. There are no comments. At 7:04pm the ZBA votes unanimously to approve the October 12, 2016 meeting minutes. Planning Board Minutes: Chairman Annas asks the Board if they have the documentation, from the Planning Board, regarding ZBA Appeal 16-09, to which the Board unanimously affirms. Chairman Annas takes this time to introduce Bob Fennell, and Chris Chale to all present. Chairman Annas asks the ZBA members if any of them wish to comment. There are no comments from the Board. Comments from the Chairman: There are no comments from the Chairman. DISCUSSION Appeal 16-05, Fred C. Cartier, application for an area variance to erect a fence, six feet in height, within the 35 foot setback, for the two front yards, on a corner lot. The Town Zoning Code § 143-28 A Fences and Walls limits fences to four feet in height when erected in the required front yard. The subject parcel is 6272-17-191168 in the R1 zoning district. The property cited above is located at 7 Adams Rd. in the Town of Red Hook. Chairman Annas asks Mr. Cartier if he has any additional information for the Board. Mr. Cartier responds he would like to review his appeal, particularly how he is affected by having two front yards. Mr. Cartier sets up an easel and white board, which he uses to create a schema of his property, and location of his [proposed] fence, in relation to Adams and Jefferson Roads. He also illustrates how his fenced area would be reduced by adhering to the required 35’ setback, and indicates the approximate location of the overgrown hedge, which he removed to install the [proposed] fence. He presents the Board with photographs of the property, when the hedge was still in place. Mr. Cartier states he was unaware of having 2 front yards. He indicates on the schema the area in which he would be required to have a 4’ high fence, instead of the requested 6’ high fence. Mr. Cartier petitions the Board, or the Town [Board], he states he is not sure how this is done, to change the law, from which he is requesting a variance, specifically to change the setback requirement from 35’ to roughly 19’, and to allow a 6’ high fence, instead of a 4’[high fence]. Mr. Cartier states he has a need for security and privacy, and states he is asking for a variance in order to have a 6’[high] fence, in the area where a 4’[high] fence is required. Mr. Cartier states, when the Town sent the [notification] letters to his neighbors, there were no responses, and maybe one person who showed up [to the Public Hearing] to see what was going on. He further states people [in his neighborhood] have [communicated to the ZBA] stating how much better [the proposed fence] looks. Mr. Cartier presents additional photographs to the Board, illustrating the [proposed] fence from different, angles, and the remnants of the old brush [overgrown hedge]. Chairman Annas asks Chris Chale if it is necessary for the Board to go over this again [since there is no new information]. Chris Chale states it is up to the Board. Kris Munn asks the Board if [this review] is helpful to Jim Hegstetter, who was not present for the initial review. Mr. Hegstetter states he has read all of the application documents, made a site visit to the property, and has no questions at this time. Tim Ross reiterates the Public Hearing was closed [at the October 12, 2016 ZBA meeting], so there are no additional comments. Mr. Ross further states, due to the 3-3 vote at that meeting, the Board offered the applicant a revote, with the full Board present. Chris Chale confirms with the Board the only absent member [at the October ZBA meeting] was Jim Hegstetter. She also confirms with Mr. Hegstetter, he has reviewed the documentation, and has no questions. Mr. Cartier shows Mr. Hegstetter a photograph of his property, and explains the precise height and location of the overgrown hedge. Mr. Hegstetter notes no neighbors objected. Kris Munn confirms this. Chairman Annas asks the Board if it has any further comments or questions. To which the Board members reply they do not. Chairman Annas asks Ms. Chale to state how the Board should proceed with the vote. Ms. Chale replies the Board needs to ascertain what it is the Board is voting on, a motion to approve [or to deny]. Chairman Annas states the Board would like to vote on the same resolution to approve, [which resulted in a 3-3 vote at the October ZBA meeting]. Kris Munn asks Ms. Chale if the Board needs to go through the balancing test, since there is a Board member present, who was not present at the last meeting. Ms. Chale asks Mr. Munn if the [Board] went through the questions of the balancing test, at the last meeting, to which he replies they did. Ms. Chale states [the matter at hand] is a question of going through them again, and for the Board to ascertain how it wants to vote this time. Kris Munn reiterates the Board went through each question, and discussed it, and asks Mr. Hegstetter if he has had a chance to review the discussion and votes from the last meeting, to which Mr. Hegstetter replies he has done so. Chris Chale confirms with the Board, all members have a copy of the resolution in question, in front of them. Tim Ross informs the Board it begins on page 7 of the October meeting minutes. Chris Chale states a Board member can move to entertain the resolution, if it so chooses. At 7:16pm Tim Ross moves to grant the variance, as stated in the variance resolution, as stated in the minutes of 10-12-16. Chris Carney seconds. Chairman Annas asks if there is any discussion, and there is none. 2 Tim Ross states, for the record, Now therefore let it be resolved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, that Application 16-05, a request for a variance from Section 143-28 A, as set forth above, be granted on the following grounds: 1. The variance requested will not produce an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties, because there are no properties abutting the right side of this property, and it is consistent with the neighborhood, in particular, the property to the left, which has a similar fence. 2. The needs of the applicant cannot be achieved by other than an area variance, because he would lose 25% of his back yard in moving the fence to the required setback, and his location, near a commercial district creates a need for security and privacy. 3. The requested variance is not substantial, numerically. 4. The requested variance will not affect the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and the applicant has submitted letters from neighbors stating the proposed fence is an improvement to the neighborhood. 5. The hardship for which the variance is sought to rectify was self-created. 6. The variance being granted is the minimum variance to meet the needs of the applicant, based on this needs for security and privacy. At 7:18pm the Board votes on the resolution as follows: Doug Lee – NO; Kris Munn – NO he states if this appeal was coming before the Board, unbuilt it would, and should be denied. Mr. Munn further states the neighborhood does not have many tall fences like the [proposed] fence, which have been legally built; Chris Carney – YES; Chairman Annas – NO; Chris Klose – NO; Tim Ross – YES; Jim Hegstetter YES; With a 4-3 vote against approving, the variance appeal is denied. [Please see Exhibit A for the Variance Resolution] Public Hearing Appeal 16-08, Matthew Nucci, application for an area variance to construct a 5’ x 8’ stone fireplace 5’ from the rear property line. Section 143-18 of the Town of Red Hook Zoning Code defines the proposed fireplace as an accessory structure, and Section 143-18 A (2) of the Town of Red Hook Zoning Codes does not permit an accessory structure less than 20’ from the rear property line. The subject parcel is 6373-00-003907, in the RD3 zoning district, located at 222 Pitcher Lane, in the Town of Red Hook. At 7:21pm Chairman Annas asks for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tim Ross so moves, Chris Klose seconds, and all are in favor. Chairman Annas asks for public comment. As there is none, Chairman Annas asks for a motion to close the Public Hearing. At 7:22pm Kris Munn so moves, Jim Hegstetter seconds, and all are in favor. 3 Chairman Annas notes the ZBA has received one letter from a neighbor, who voices no objection to the proposal as long as the fires are well extinguished. He invites Mr. Nucci to come forward and present his application for the benefit of Mr. Hegstetter, who was absent from the October ZBA meeting. Mr. Nucci states his plan is to build a stone patio and a stone wall, and fireplace in the middle of the wall, adjacent to the patio. Mr. Nucci also states his intention to put footings down, under the fireplace, so that it does not break over time. Chairman Annas asks Mr. Hegstetter if he has any questions, to which Mr. Hegstetter asks if there are any pictures or renditions of the project. Tim Ross notes there is a sketch, [submitted with the application]. Chris Klose confirms with the Board and the applicant the parcel is adjacent to agricultural land. Jim Hegstetter states he has no further questions. Mr. Nucci states the fireplace, wall and patio will be comprised of bluestone. At 7:24pm Chairman Annas declares the action a Type II Action under SEQR. The Board notes the following pertinent facts: It has reviewed a sketch of the proposal, including the location of the proposed fireplace, the setback, its location on the property, and its dimensions. The applicant’s property is adjacent to several Agricultural parcels. The proposed fireplace is smaller than a 100 square foot shed, which would be allowed 5’ from the lot line. It is a benefit to the property owner, but should not be located next to the house. The applicant is using bluestone, to construct the proposed fireplace, which will blend in with the surroundings. The only neighbor who has communicated with the ZBA is in favor of the proposal. Chairman Annas notes the applicant is before the Board because his proposal is considered a permanent structure. The Board reviews the questions of the ZBA balancing test as follows: 1. The variance requested will not produce an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. All are agreed. 2. The needs of the applicant cannot be achieved by other than an area variance. All are agreed. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. The size of the structure is modest. All are agreed. 4. The requested variance will not affect the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. All are agreed. Stone is a natural material, and the applicant’s property is surrounded by farms. 5. The hardship for which the variance is sought to rectify was not self-created. All are agreed. 6. The variance being granted is the minimum variance to meet the needs of the applicant. All are agreed. At 7:30pm Kris Munn moves to approve the variance. Tim Ross seconds. Chairman Annas asks the Board for further comments. As there are none, the Board votes as follows: 4 Jim Hegstetter YES; Tim Ross YES: Chris Klose YES; Chairman Annas YES; Chris Carney YES; Kris Munn YES; Doug Lee ABSENT. The motion to grant the variance passes. [Please see Exhibit B for the Variance Resolution] Public Hearing Appeal 16-10, Frank Doherty representing Redwing Properties Inc., application for an area variance to bring into compliance an existing, detached garage (accessory structure), measuring 809 square feet, consisting of a 16’ x 24’, and a 17’ x 25’ section, 7’ from the rear property line. Section 143-18 A (2) of the Town of Red Hook Zoning Codes does not permit an accessory structure less than 20’ from the rear property line. The subject parcel is 6473-00-102396, in the RD3 zoning district, located at 608 Turkey Hill Rd., in the Town of Red Hook. Chairman Annas asks if Frank Doherty is present. A Mr. Paul Doherty, who identifies himself as a VP of Redwing Properties Inc. steps forward, and states Frank Doherty could not be present at the meeting. Anne Rubin notes at the October 12, 2016 ZBA meeting, ZBA counsel, Victoria Polidoro, had asked Frank Doherty for a list of the Board of Directors, of Redwing Properties Inc., and notes the ZBA never received the document. Mr. Doherty apologizes and states [the business] is just family, comprising his sister, himself, his two nephews, and another brother, who is retired. Chairman Annas comments this is a procedural issue, and legally, [the person appearing] has to be an owner of the property. Chairman Annas asks Paul Doherty to confirm he is an owner of the property, which he does. Chairman Annas asks Chris Chale if the Board can proceed without the list [of Board of Directors of Redwing Properties Inc.], to which Ms. Chale replies the ZBA can. Board members Tim Ross and Jim Hegstetter state they can vouch for Mr. Doherty. Ms. Chale further states the Board itself may be familiar [enough] with this applicant [in order to proceed]. She asks Mr. Doherty to confirm he is a Vice President [of Redwing Properties Inc.], which he does. Chairman Annas asks if everyone has reviewed the EAF-Short Form, [submitted by the applicant, to which the Board members reply, they have. At 7:34pm Chairman Annas asks for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tim Ross so moves, Kris Munn seconds, and all are in favor. Chairman Annas asks for comments from the public, and as there are none, Kris Munn moves to close the Public Hearing, Chris Carney seconds, and all are in favor. At 7:35pm Chairman Annas declares the action a Type II Action under SEQR, and Chris Chale notes the Board, even though it will not go through SEQR review, the findings will reflect the Board’s review [of the EAF-S]. Kris Munn asks Jim Hegstetter if he has any questions, to which Mr. Hegstetter replies he does not. The Board conducts the [5 pronged] ZBA Balancing Test [of the Variance Resolution]: 1. The Variance requested will not produce an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Mr. Paul Doherty states his nephew, [Frank Doherty] informed him [Redwing Properties Inc. bought the property 13 years ago. Mr. Doherty further states no title search was performed at that time. He further states the garage was built sometime in the 1980s. Mr. Doherty further comments the woman who wants to buy the property has a commitment from the bank, which expires at the end [of November]. Chairman Annas states this is a structure which has been in permitted in error. He surmises it was not known the parcel was split between the Town of Milan and the Town of Red Hook. Chairman Annas further notes the applicant is not asking for any change [to the structure], simply area variance to bring it into compliance. As such, Chairman Annas, states he does not find any reason for which the structure could 5 produce any undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. All Board members agree with his assessment. 2. The needs of the applicant cannot be achieved by other than an area variance. All Board members agree. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Chairman Annas states he does not find the requested variance substantial, under the circumstances of the structure being in place for 30 years. Chris Chale notes in the balancing test, even if the Board did find the variance substantial, it is weighed against the other factors. She suggests the Board review each factor individually, and weigh them after [this consideration], rather than reaching for a certain outcome. Kris Munn suggests putting a building of this size, 7’ from the lot line is, in fact, a substantial variance. He further states he does not think this is grounds for refusing [to grant] the variance, based on circumstances, and the lot [being split]. He further states if an applicant came to the ZBA with a request to put a building of that size, 7’ from the lot line, instead of the required 20’, it is likely the Board would find this a substantial variance. Chairman Annas replies if the Board looks at the request purely from a numerical standpoint, without considering the circumstances, such as the fact that one of the lot lines is actually the [other section of the parcel, which is split between the Town of Red Hook, and the Town of Milan], and the fact it has been there a long time, it could be considered a substantial variance. Chris Klose comments it could be considered a substantial variance in the strict application of the law, but in fact, [the structure] has been there for 30 years. 4. The requested variance will not affect the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. All are agreed it will not. Kris Munn notes the area is sparsely populated. 5. The hardship for which the variance is sought to rectify was not self-created. All are agreed it was not. 6. The variance being granted is the minimum variance to meet the needs of the applicant. All are agreed it is. Neither the existing building, nor the lot line can be moved. Kris Munn asks Assistant ZEO, Bob Fennell if he has any input, to which Mr. Fennell replies he is in agreement with the Board’s assessment. At 7:40pm Chairman Annas asks the Board to grant the variance. Kris Munn moves to approve the variance, based on the criteria the Board has reviewed. Chris Klose seconds. At 7:41pm the Board votes unanimously, without Doug Lee, who is absent, to approve the variance. The variance is granted. [Please see Exhibit C for the Variance Resolution] Public Hearing Appeal 16-09, AMJ Properties, aka Funshine Daycare, represented by Don Triebel, application for five (5) area variances to alter the parking aisle width, the parking area and play area setbacks, the building coverage and the lot coverage for a commercial daycare center, on a 1.204 acre lot. The subject parcel is 6 6273-00-921623 in the RD1.5 zoning district, and is located at 208 Rockefeller Lane, in the Town of Red Hook. The Applicant has applied for the following variances: 1. A variance from § 143-77 (C) of the Red Hook Zoning Law, to permit an outdoor play area with side yard setbacks of 10.5’ and 10.1’, and a rear yard setback of 10.89’, where a minimum of 200 square feet, per child, and a minimum of 50 feet for side and rear setbacks, and vegetative and/or landform screening are required . 2. A variance from § 143-26.2(d&e) of the Red Hook Zoning Law, to permit a parking area with a parking aisle width of 24’, where a 26’ aisle width, for sixty degree parking, with two directional flow, and where a 26’ aisle width for perpendicular parking, with one or two directional flow, are required. 3. A variance from § 143-26.2(b) of the Red Hook Zoning Law, District Schedule of Area and Bulk Regulations, to permit a parking area with a side yard setback of 10’, where the minimum setback, of 20’, or greater distance, as may be required by The District Schedule of Area and Bulk Regulations, is required. 4. A variance from § 143 Attachment 2 District Schedule of Area and Bulk Regulations of the Red Hook Zoning Law, to permit a building coverage of 10.95%, where Maximim Building Coverage, permitted in the R1.5 Zoning District is 10%, and from § 143 Attachment 2:2 (4), requiring not less than 40% of the required minimum open space associated with any non-residential land use, as such is set for the in the District Schedule of Use Regulations, shall be provided between the front building line and the public right of way. 5. A variance from §143 Attachment 2 District Schedule of Area and Bulk Regulations of the Red Hook Zoning Law, to alter the existing, total lot coverage of 33.91% to 32.59%, through the demolition of an existing building, and the construction of a new building, resulting in open space of 67.41%, where 70% is required, in the R1.5 Zoning District. At 7:43pm Tim Ross recuses himself, as he is working with the applicant on this project. Chairman Annas comments he and ZBA counsel, Victoria Polidoro had a conversation regarding the construction of an addition to the main building, which would expand the square footage of the facility. He asks Ms. Chale how this would affect Variance 14-01, which was granted in light of the fact no further expansion was planned for the facility. He further states Ms. Polidoro voiced an opinion if the applicant did expand his square footage, it could possibly void the previous, above cited variance. Ms. Chale asks Chairman Annas if Ms. Polidoro said this to the Board, to which Chairman Annas replies he asked her about it, and this was her reply. Ms. Chale states she understood the Planning Board was addressing this issue, which Chairman Annas affirms, and asks Ms. Chale to confirm this is the [Planning Board’s] prerogative. Ms. Chale replies it is this Board’s job to consider the variances now before it. Don Triebel asks the Board if the expansion they are speaking of regards the size of the facility, or to the operating business business, and further states he is not expanding the business, as he stated, at the October ZBA meeting. Chairman Annas confirms he is referring to the expansion of the facility. Mr. Triebel asks how the expansion of his facility would affect a variance granted [for expanding the number of enrollees, at the facility], and further states he does not see how the two are connected. Chairman Annas asks Anne Rubin for a copy of the Findings and Decision [for Appeal 14-01]. Ms. Rubin states the exact wording of that variance as follows: “…the Board, in its deliberations, has carefully considered all of the information, and concerns presented, and, as such, is recommending a reduction to the variance, originally requested. The Board further believes that given the fact no expansion of the existing, approved facilities is proposed, no adverse impacts to the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, and welfare of the community will arise from the granting of this variance.” Ms. Rubin states the word conditional is not used in this document, but could be said to be implied. She further states it is her understanding, in having a conversation with Kathleen Flood, the Planning Board Clerk, and Michele 7 Greig, the [Town Planner], the Planning Board discussed this matter, and believed the expansion to be small, and no explicitly stated conditions were contained in the Findings and Decsion. Mr. Triebel states [the Planning Board] referred to this as de minimus, referring to the difference between the building he took down, and the proposed addition to the main structure. Kris Munn states, if the language [Ms. Rubin] stated [in the ZBA Findings and Decision], is there, he has no problem with the [difference in square footage between the demolished structure and the proposed addition]. Chairman Annas asks Ms. Chale who has to prerogative to make the determination [whether or not the previous variance is voided by the expansion in square footage, represented by the proposed addition]. Ms. Chale states it is Steve Cole or Bob Fennell, and further states they have made their determination and referred the matter to the ZBA, on the issues they presented to the Board, as contained in the request for 5 variances currently before the Board. Town of Red Hook ZEO, Bob Fennell, concurs. Ms. Chale affirms it is not for the ZBA to make a determination in the first instance [the question raised by Chairman Annas]. Kris Munn further states it is up to the applicant to determine what he or she is asking for, and consider any repercussions thereto. Mr. Triebel states he is not aware of any repercussions, and asks the Board to state any it finds. Chairman Annas replies this was the point of his question, to settle whether or not the expanded square footage of the applicant’s proposed addition would void the previous variance. Kris Munn states he does not see anything in the language to that effect. Mr. Triebel further states neither he, nor the Board, ever spoke of expanding or modifying the building or structures [in his appeal to increase the number of enrollees at his facility]. Ms. Chale states this question is not a matter before the Board at this time, and further notes the issues before the Board are [the 5 variance requests] referred to the ZBA by the Town Building Department. Chairman Annas asks Ms. Chale to clarify the Victoria Polidoro’s modifications to the section references. Ms. Chale states Victoria Polidoro did note the listed variances identified were not the correct section references, and recommends the Board look at the Code, in order to better understand what Ms. Polidoro is referring to. The Board and Ms. Chale discuss the section reference changes, with Ms. Chale recommending the Board re-notice the public hearing. The changes are as follows: Variance 1 original section reference 143-77 C is changed to 143-77 Variance 2 original section reference 143-26 (d & e) is changed to 143-26(B)(2)(d)(1)(e) Variance 3 original section reference 143-26.2 (b) is changed to 143-26(B)(2)(b) The Board reviews the relevant code sections and decides to continue with the public hearing, with the applicant’s consensus, since the initial parts of the code references are correct, and it would still be fairly understandable to which parts of the code the application and public hearing notice are referring, due to the presence of accompanying textual description. At 8:06pm Kris Munn moves to open the Public Hearing, Jim Hegstetter seconds, and all are in favor. Harvey and Gerta Leidy, of 224 Rockefeller Lane state they are concerned with the height of the new addition, and its blocking of their scenic view of the Catskill Mountains. Mr. Leidy further notes Rockefeller Lane is heavily travelled, and he and his wife experience incidental noise of children playing. Mr. Leidy states the variances are substantial in a 1.5 acre zoning district, and he asks how they will be mitigated in order to maintain environmental integrity, and enhance the quality of the neighborhood. Mr. Leidy is also concerned the number of children enrolled could increase at some future time. Mr. Triebel states his modifications to the property increase the aesthetic appeal through the removal of a dilapidated shed at the Rockefeller Lane side of the property, and the increase in green space, on the side of the parcel abutting their property, through the parking area redesign. Mrs. Leidy comments it would be helpful to 8 see an illustration of the modifications. Anne Rubin hands them a copy of the proposed and current site plans, and an elevation, showing the proposed addition. Chairman Annas reminds Mr. Triebel he needs to address the Board, and not the public. The Board and Mr. Triebel ascertain the height of the addition will be approximately four and a half feet higher than the main building, and substantially lower than the neighboring trees, which are estimated to be 30’ high. Mr. Triebel states the upper level of the addition is not a full second story, but more of a half story, which will be used to house the mechanicals, such as heating and ac, for the building. He further states the addition will not be used as classroom space, since it will have neither bathrooms, nor a water hookup. Chris Klose asks Mr. and Mrs. Leidy if they have any objections to the variances, to which they state they do not. Mr. Klose confirms with Mr. and Mrs. Leidy they do not want to see a taller building, and an increase in the number children permitted enrollment, in the future, which would result in an obstruction of their scenic views, and more traffic on Rockefeller Lane. Chairman Annas asks how many children are present on a daily basis, to which Mr. Triebel replies, the legal cap is 93, there are currently 60-65 enrolled, and the daily headcount is estimated to be between 20 and 45. Mr. Triebel further states the facility is at 2/3rds capacity, and is not currently equipped to handle more children than that. Ms. Chale states those concerns are part of what will be addressed in the SEQR review the Board is conducting. Chairman Annas asks about the pavilion on the parcel. Mr. Triebel states it is used in the summertime to give the children some access to a shaded area, while they are outside. Chairman Annas asks if it is permanent, and what kind of foundation does it have. Mr. Triebel replies it has a concrete foundation, but since it has no walls, it is not considered a permanent structure, according to the Town [Zoning] Code, and he asks the Board what this has to do with the variances. Chairman Annas states it has to do with the calculation of lot coverage. Mr. Triebel further states the Planning Board has reviewed the building coverage calculation, and does not, by virtue of the Town Code, consider the pavilion to be part of the building coverage. Kris Munn comments if the numbers used by the Planning Board are outside those stated in the variance requests, Mr. Triebel would have to come back to the ZBA. Chairman Annas voices a concern regarding the building coverage calculation, since the number cited in the engineering report, submitted to the Planning Board, 11.39%, and the number cited on the ZBA application is 10.95%. Bob Fennell asks Mr. Triebel to describe the pavilion. Mr. Triebel states there are two small pavilions on the parcel, each having a foundation, a roof, and no sides. He further notes one of them covers a sandbox, and the other has a concrete foundation. Mr. Fennell asks the applicant to indicate the precise location of the pavilions on the site plan, which he does. Mr. Fennell confirms with Ms. Chale the pavilions are accessory structures, but not buildings, and as such, they contribute to the building coverage calculation. Mr. Leidy asks for a description of the new building. Mr. Triebel asks the Board if he may describe it, and states it will be 1500 square feet, with one part serving as an office, and the other part will be an open area, in which the children can run around if it is raining. Mr. Triebel adds the section of the building containing the office might be further subdivided into two spaces, in order to create a smaller room where special needs children may receive therapy, such as small motor training. The Board discusses the engineering report, and the Town Code with Ms. Chale, who recommends re- noticing the public hearing, and discussing the other variance requests. The Board confirms the calculation for total lot coverage, cited in the engineering report, matches the calculation cited in the original application, as do the calculations for the setbacks. The Board, upon reviewing the engineering report, with the consensus of the applicant, decides to modify the building coverage calculation from 10.95% to 11.39%, instead of re-noticing the public hearing, since the change is a small one. 9 Jonas Selenis, residing at 212 Rockefeller Lane states he is in favor of the project. At 8:50pm Chris Klose moves to close the public hearing. Kris Munn seconds, and all are in favor. The Board reviews the EAF-S. Ms.Chale asks if there is some reason the Planning Board did not circulate, in order to conduct a coordinated review. No Board member states he is aware of one. Kris Munn reads from the Greenplan Memo, from the Planning Board coordinated review is not required for unlisted actions. Ms. Chale states the Board will need to make its own SEQR findings, from Part II, Impact Assessment of the EAF-S, which is follows: Kris Munn notes question four, part I, on the first page, should be commercial, and not residential, which Ms. Chale confirms, from a SEQR perspective, though the property is zoned residential, Special Use. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? The Board agrees it will not. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of the land? The Board agrees it will not. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? The Board agrees it will not. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)? Ms. Chale confirms there is no CEA on, or near the parcel. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic, or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? The Board agrees it will not. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? Will the proposed action impact existing public/private water supplies, and/or public/private wastewater treatment utilities? The Board agrees it will not. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, achaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources? The Board agrees it will not. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g. wetlands, waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)? The Board agrees it will not. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage problems? The Board agrees it will not. Chris Klose and Chairman Annas state the variances will mitigate any such potential, since they will result in more green space, and less impervious cover. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? The Board agrees it will not. 10 Chairman Annas states The Board’s agreement with the applicant’s statements in Part II of the EAF-S. Chris Chale states the Board can make a negative declaration finding, under SEQR, at this time. At 8:57pm Kris Munn moves to make a Negative Declaration Finding under SEQR, based on the Board’s review and discussion of the application, and the applicant’s statements in the EAF-S. Chris Klose seconds, and all are in favor. Chairman Annas states the Board will review each variance separately, and vote on each one. Chris Chale states the Board should review and discuss each one separately, but not necessarily vote on each one separately, unless there are differences of opinion, which would require a separate vote. [Please see attached variance resolution 16-09 for the Board’s comments and votes, for each variance requested.] At 9:29pm Kris Munn moves to approve all five variances requested, to include the Town Code Chapters cited, as modified during the meeting, and the revised building coverage calculation, based on the findings, and the engineering report from Morris & Associates P. E. Jim Hegstetter seconds the motion, and there are no further comments. The Board votes unanimously to grant all five variances requested. At 9:30pm Jim Hegstetter moves to adjourn the meeting. Chris Klose seconds, and all are in favor. 11